Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2020 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (3) TMI 217 - AT - Income TaxPenalty u/s 271(1)(c) - disallowance u/s 94(7) - short-term capital loss on sale of shares where dividend has been received - transactions in certain securities - HELD THAT:- The assessee in the return of income claimed such short term capital loss and adjusted the same against short-term capital gain on sale of the motor cars. When the Assessing Officer pointed out this error to the assessee, the assessee agreed to the said amount for tax. The contention of the assessee that this was a bonafide error on the part of the assessee, whereas contention of the Revenue is that had this error not pointed out of by the Assessing Officer, this would have remained unnoticed and the assessee would have taken benefit of the error. It is evident that in the return of income, the assessee claimed short term capital loss which was not allowed in terms of section 94(7) of the Act. This is also a matter of fact that this error came to light only when the Assessing Officer asked for justification of the claim of certain capital loss in view of the clear provisions of section 94(7) of the Act. In our opinion, there is no doubt that in the return of income particulars filed by the assessee in respect of short-term capital loss, which has been adjusted against the short-term capital gain, are inaccurate. Excess claim of expenses and prepaid expenses - assessee admitted that it has wrongly claimed deduction of the whole of the amount of ₹ 6,73,440/- instead of ₹ 1,12,240/- pertaining to the year under consideration - HELD THAT:- Obviously the assessee has filed inaccurate particulars of income in the return of income filed, though later on assessee has accepted its mistake. AO cannot absolve the assessee for filing inaccurate particulars in the return of income and pardon him, if the assessee except the mistake and pay the tax on the same. This action of the assessee cannot be said to be voluntary. Further, the learned Counsel could not substantiate before us as how two opinion exists on the issue of prepaid expenses of corporate entrance fee disallowed by the learned Assessing Officer. CIT(A) has relied on the decision of Mak Data Ltd. [2013 (1) TMI 574 - DELHI HIGH COURT] wherein it is held that the statute does not recognize defences on account of ‘voluntary disclosure’, ‘buy peace’, ‘avoid litigation’, amicable settlement etc. to explain away of its conduct under the Explanation -1 to Section 271(1)(c) - voluntary disclosure does not release the assessee from the mischief of the penal proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act and the law does not provide that when assessee makes voluntary disclosure of his concealed income, he has to be absolved from the penalty. Also see NG TECHNOLOGIES LTD. [2014 (12) TMI 481 - DELHI HIGH COURT] - Decided against assessee.
|